Reimann v. Monmouth Consolidated Water Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1DissentVanderbilt, C. J.
Under Baum v. Somerville Water Co., 84 N. J. L. 611 (E. & A. 1913), the defendant water company, in the absence of an express contract with a property owner and a breach thereof, has no obligation to furnish water with sufficient pressure and in sufficient, quantity for fire fighting purposes. Because I am of the opinion that the rule in the Baum case is repugnant not- only to fundamental concepts of substantial justice but to modern principles of tort liability, I am constrained to dissent from the opinion of the majority and to state the reasons why I think the rule should be discarded in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Funk v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Woods v. LancetNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Carter v. Yardley & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Martin v. CurranNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.